Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds modest context that results are paginated ('returns a page of contacts'), but says nothing about page size, default ordering, or result limits beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the optionality constraint. The trailing 'Re:amaze REST: GET /contacts' is redundant detail that an agent gains little from, but nothing is bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately signals it returns a page of contacts and that all filters are optional. Missing only result-shape or ordering hints, which are low-stakes here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema (page is 1-based with page_size/page_count/total_count semantics, filter is a free-text substring). The description only restates optionality, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list/search) and resource (contacts), disambiguating with '(customers)'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling reamaze_get_contact or reamaze_list_conversations, but the list-vs-get distinction is clear enough from the name and description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'All filters optional' implies a browse/search use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus reamaze_get_contact (single lookup) or any create/update sibling. Usage is inferable from the verb but never stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.